Saturday, July 6, 2013

Classic Quotes: “The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.”

Where Evolution Becomes Crystal Clear

Every once in a while evolutionists distill their thoughts into pithy statements that profoundly summarize what it’s all about for them. Carl Sagan’s 1980 Cosmos video is chocked full of such statements, but non better than his classic opening line: “The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” [Please click to see] Obviously that is a truth claim, but it does not come from science. Truth claims that do not come from science are nothing new. What is new, however, is the presentation of such truth as science. And so while there is nothing wrong with evolutionists proclaiming what they believe. There is everything wrong with their insistence that it is what everyone else must believe as well. That their personal religious beliefs, not open to scientific scrutiny, are scientific facts. Evolutionists may be correct about origins, but they are not scientific.

Here is a small, representative sampling of such claims over the past three centuries.

“We think him a better Artist that makes a Clock that strikes regularly at every hour from the Springs and Wheels which he puts in the work, than he that hath so made his Clock that he must put his finger to it every hour to make it strike.” Thomas Burnet, 1681

“Newton and his followers also have a very odd opinion regarding God’s workmanship. According to them, God’s watch—the universe—would stop working if he didn’t re-wind it from time to time! He didn’t have enough foresight to give it perpetual motion. This machine that he has made is so imperfect that from time to time he has to clean it by a miraculous intervention, and even has to mend it, as a clockmaker mends his work. The oftener a clockmaker has to adjust his machine and set it right, the clumsier he must be as a clockmaker!” Gottfried Leibniz, 1715

God would not “set his own hand as it were to every work, and immediately do all the meanest and trifling’st things himself drudgingly, without making use of any inferior or subordinate Minister.” John Ray, 1717

It is most appropriate to the wisdom of God that the cosmic structures “develop themselves in an unforced succession out of the universal laws.” Immanuel Kant, 1755

“A perpetual war is kindled amongst all living creatures,” and nature is so arranged so as “to embitter the life of every living being.” David Hume, 1779

“The world itself might have been generated, rather than created; that is, it might have been gradually produced from very small beginnings, increasing by the activity of its inherent principles, rather than by a sudden evolution by the whole by the Almighty fiat. What a magnificent idea of the infinite power of the great architect! The Cause of Causes! Parent of Parents! Ens Entium! For if we may compare infinities, it would seem to require a greater infinity of power to cause the causes of effects, than to cause the effects themselves.” Erasmus Darwin, 1794

“How can we suppose an immediate exertion of this creative power at one time to produce the zoophytes, another time to add a few marine mollusks, another to bring in one or two crustacea, again to crustaceous fishes, again perfect fishes, and so on to the end. This would surely be to take a very mean view of the Creative Power.” Robert Chambers, 1844

“No inductive inquirer can bring himself to believe in the existence of any real hiatus in the continuity of physical laws in past eras more than in the existing order of things; or to imagine that changes, however seemingly abrupt, can have been brought about except by the gradual agency of some regular causes. On such principles the whole superstructure of rational geology entirely reposes; to deny them in any instance would be to endanger all science. … The event [the introduction of new species] is part of a regularly ordained mechanism of the evolution of the existing world out of former conditions, and as much subject to regular laws as any changes now taking place.” Baden Powell, 1855

“these analogies are utterly inexplicable if species are independent creations.” Charles Darwin, 1859

“The strange springs and traps and pitfalls found in the flowers of Orchids cannot be necessary per se, since exactly the same end is gained in ten thousand other flowers which do not possess them. Is it not then an extraordinary idea to imagine the Creator of the Universe contriving the various complicated parts of these flowers as a mechanic might contrive an ingenious toy or a difficult puzzle? Is it not a more worthy conception that they are some of the results of those general laws which were so co-ordinated at the first introduction of life upon the earth as to result necessarily in the utmost possible development of varied forms?” –Alfred Wallace, 1870

“If whales were made at once out of hand as we now see them, is it conceivable that these useless teeth would have been given them?” –Joseph Le Conte, 1891

“What we do not know today we shall know tomorrow.” Alexander Oparin, 1924

“Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history.” Stephen Jay Gould, 1980

“The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” Carl Sagan, 1980

Would God “really want to take credit for the mosquito?” Ken Miller, 1999

“There are too many deficiencies, too much cruelty in the world of life. To assume that they have been explicitly created by God amounts to blasphemy. I believe God to be omniscient and benevolent. The ‘design’ of organisms is not compatible with such beliefs.” Francisco Ayala, 2002

These claims are not from science, but they drive science. They determine what is acceptable and not acceptable. They inform science and constrain it the “right” answers. As was said so long ago, theology is the queen of the sciences. Imagine for a moment that you believed these things. Then you would be an evolutionist.

93 comments:

Fun fact: A new digital planetarium in Salt Lake City was recruited to generate the Cosmos opening sequence of a camera moving toward Earth from behind the Big Dipper. Excellent, spectacular footage for the times, but disappointing to the show's personnel, even Sagan. "Why doesn't it look like the big dipper in reverse?" they asked. "Um, because the stars in the Big Dipper are at different distances from the Earth. They are not on a single surface like holes poked in a blanket...". "We don't care...make it look that way anyway". Which the planetarium did. To a person, including Sagan, the show's personnel were astronomically challenged, and preferred showmanship over truth.

A new digital planetarium in Salt Lake City was recruited to generate the Cosmos opening sequence of a camera moving toward Earth from behind the Big Dipper

"In 1983, Evans & Sutherland installed the first planetarium projector displaying computer graphics (Hansen Planetarium, Salt Lake City, Utah)—the Digistar I projector used a vector graphics system to display starfields as well as line art"

Cosmos series started in September, meaning shot most likely 1979 .

Would you happen to have the original source for your story? It be interesting to have the source of this quote"

Why doesn't it look like the big dipper in reverse?" they asked.

Like who are they?

"Um, because the stars in the Big Dipper are at different distances from the Earth. They are not on a single surface like holes poked in a blanket...".

If"To a person, including Sagan, the show's personnel were astronomically challenged,", who then is this talking?After all it is curious to me that someone who works professionally in an observatory would not understand that the stars were not equidistant from earth. That sounds like some kind of ancient wisdom if anything.

"......", at least provide whole sentences.So if not too difficult,would you mind a source because I could find none.

"Evolutionists" as defined by CH are not only foundationalists, but they hold extremely minority opinions on what is "obvious." E.g., how many such "evolutionists" would agree that Sagan's claim is obvious?

V: Which claim, that the cosmos is all there is? The theistic evolutionists wouldn't depending on exactly what Sagan meant by cosmos.

J: Multi-verse'ists wouldn't necessarily agree with the other part -- “... or ever was ..." Scientists claim to have a healthy skepticism. But the things they're dogmatic are so different from naturally-caused beliefs of most folks that it is more accurate to say they are some of the most baldly dogmatic folks on the planet.

Multi-verse'ists wouldn't necessarily agree with the other part -- “... or ever was ..." Scientists claim to have a healthy skepticism

So the answer to your question is many evolutionists might disagree depending on what Sagan meant by cosmos. Thereby showing healthy skepticism. But lets's remember ,Sagan said that in 1979. . But the things they're dogmatic are so different from naturally-caused beliefs of most folks that it is more accurate to say they are some of the most baldly dogmatic folks on the planet.

Of course scientists can be dogmatic, not sure what a naturally caused belief is. Though unlike some dogmatic beliefs, evidence is able to refute dogmatic positions. There are not any Newtonists to speak of.

V: Of course scientists can be dogmatic, not sure what a naturally caused belief is.

J: Do you think every belief is voluntarily-formed? How is that even possible? How do you voluntarily believe anything without FIRST believing you're free?

V: Though unlike some dogmatic beliefs, evidence is able to refute dogmatic positions. There are not any Newtonists to speak of.

J: Axioms are required to even DEFINE evidence. These have to be held dogmatically to the extent that one insists that a "warranted" belief be defined as a belief related to other beliefs by the selected evidentiary relations. There's nothing irrational about that, per se. But Sagan's claim is neither an axiom of science nor evidenced by anything inferred BY science using any of the canons of evidential reasoning. It's literally a bald-faced pontification.

Furthermore, V, until the old atomic theory fell flat because of "quantum wierdness," the bald pontifications came predominantly in from those in the "historical" sciences. Because "there," using the canons of evidential reasoning, there's precious little evidence of much at all in the way of explanation. But now the QW folk have questioned causality itself. Once there, there's no evidence for anything, including your existence. But all this was inevitable once teleological inductivism was abandoned. Without teleology, you lose induction. And without induction, you have no non-arbitrary evidential relations.

Unfortunately Jeff I think they have confused intuitiveness with causation. Its not intuitive that an effect can proceed a cause because of our sense of the flow of time but if we lived in a world where time flowed backwards the effect would produce the cause in way that we would full recognize as causal.

As long as there is a reason for why something happens then there is a logic and a cause. The only way you get to a universe without cause is if that universe has no laws and anything can and will happen or exist

Unfortunately for the atheists that would mean that God would be a 100% chance of being real - so a certainty.

He is defining his term, including everything that was,is and will be. After all"In the general sense, a cosmos is an orderly or harmonious system. The word derives from the Greek term κόσμος (kosmos), literally meaning "order" or "ornament" and metaphorically "world",and is antithetical to the concept of chaos. "

That definition seems to me would cover everything that is real,even the immaterial Sagan,1981"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed."

Certainly allowing that God of some form may exist,in which case , " Cosmos" would include that diety

How do you voluntarily believe anything without FIRST believing you're free?

Then how could you believe you were not free if first you had to believe you were free?

"an orderly or harmonious system" could only be known to be orderly or harmonious by assumptions. Those assumptions are utterly arbitrary per atheism. Moreover, even with the assumptions, it doesn't rule out MULTIPLE cosmoses which have different and mutually exclusive kinds of "order."

V: Then how could you believe you were not free if first you had to believe you were free?

J: How, per your epistemology, distinguish between free and non-free? I've explained my approach. Teleology requires both a libertarian cause, followed by intermediate means, followed by the final end. Means are natural. All three of these are correlative per our categories, IMO.

Jeff,an orderly or harmonious system" could only be known to be orderly or harmonious by assumptions.

Observations would be adequate to feel confidant that there is some order and therefore predictability, seasons follow seasons, rocks always fall, sun rises predictably.

Those assumptions are utterly arbitrary per atheism

Perhaps but they were not arbitrary but they were chosen because they seem to provide predictability. The basis of the assumptions of science.

Moreover, even with the assumptions, it doesn't rule out MULTIPLE cosmoses which have different and mutually exclusive kinds of "order."

You miss the point there is only one Cosmos per the definition Sagan gave. Cosmos is all that is,was and will be. " All" is inclusive of of all existence. Cosmos does not, per Sagan's definition, exclude anything,if there are "all" beyond this universe it includes them.

Jeff: an orderly or harmonious system" could only be known to be orderly or harmonious by assumptions.

V: Observations would be adequate to feel confidant that there is some order and therefore predictability, seasons follow seasons, rocks always fall, sun rises predictably.

J: No. "Observations" are worthless if events are uncaused. They're also worthless without a regularly working memory. And you can't even "observe" that you HAVE a regularly working memory. You always have to embrace tons of naturally-caused beliefs to get anywhere of significance. But apart from induction, there's no way to do that non-arbitrarily and still hold to the law of non-contradiction.

V: Perhaps but they were not arbitrary but they were chosen because they seem to provide predictability. The basis of the assumptions of science.

J: But they don't provide anything without the validity of induction. And you have yet to provide one IOTA of inductive evidence for naturalistic UCA.

V: You miss the point there is only one Cosmos per the definition Sagan gave. Cosmos is all that is,was and will be. " All" is inclusive of of all existence. Cosmos does not, per Sagan's definition, exclude anything,if there are "all" beyond this universe it includes them.

J: Then your definition of a particular "order" or "system" is not the definition he was using. If all he meant to say is that what exists at any time is all that ever has or can exist, he chose a poor word to communicate that belief. And it runs completely counter to Z's claim (based on the assumption that the standard model is plausible) that there is evidence that virtual particles pop into existence all the time.

V: This is the part I am cloudy on, what is required for something to be a libertarian cause, can there be any non libertarian influences on that cause and still be a libertarian cause?

J: There are necessary conditions of a libertarian cause, best I can tell. The volitional agent has to have an interest in two or more mutually-exclusive future conditions, at least two of which the volitional agent has the capacity to instantiate by setting the fitting means in motion by instantiating the relevent initial conditions of the "means" event sequence. This means that the agent is sentient and aware of conflicting impulses unto mutually exclusive future states, and capable of rejecting one in favor of the other. If this is inconceivable, all beliefs are only conceivable as natural (i.e., irresistable) or uncaused (i.e., irresistable). And that means belief is not conceivably normative. And that means there is no conceivabe rightness or wrongness of belief or action. And that means "plausibility" has no meaning relevant to action or thought since all specific actions and thoughts are irresistable.

That is clearly wrong, one could determine that events are probably not caused, this if true would of course eliminate the need for an Uncaused Cause

They're also worthless without a regularly working memory

Depends on how is is not working I expect, we seem to have a sense of continuity

If that is false and we live in a cosmoswhere Uncaused events happen ,a bad memory could be useful.

And you can't even "observe" that you HAVE a regularly working memory.

I disagree ,you can certainly observe it,you just can't observe whether that is indeed true

You always have to embrace tons of naturally-caused beliefs to get anywhere of significance

That you exist, have a memory, and you live in a caused world?

Let's see, If you don't exist you can't have a faulty memory though in a Uncaused world perhaps you could

So living in a Uncaused world renders all logic worthless. Even the logic you live in an Uncaused world is unreliable.So probably we would see cause ,no matter if it was or wasn't.

So as a working premise , existence and somewhat orderly world, without those two, nothing else is possible. So two basic functional premises which seem to be confirmed by observation regularlyWhat are the tons?

apart from induction, there's no way to do that non-arbitrarily and still hold to the law of non-contradiction.

In an Uncaused world induction is worthless, and it doesn't at least seem arbitrary, if so I might imagine myself as better looking and faster.

V: That is clearly wrong, one could determine that events are probably not caused, this if true would of course eliminate the need for an Uncaused Cause

J: No, you can't apply frequency probability once events can be uncaused. You can only apply "number of possible outcome" probability. And that renders any particular inference implausible.

J: They're also worthless without a regularly working memory

V: Depends on how is is not working I expect, we seem to have a sense of continuity

J: Again, you have to use "number of possible outcomes" probability. You can't get anywhere like that.

V: If that is false and we live in a cosmoswhere Uncaused events happen ,a bad memory could be useful.

J: But with only the "number of possible outcomes" probabilistic approach, you can't infer anything that's probable.

J: And you can't even "observe" that you HAVE a regularly working memory.

V: I disagree ,you can certainly observe it,you just can't observe whether that is indeed true

J: You can never observe past events. So you're wrong.

V: Let's see,If you don't exist you can't have a faulty memory though in a Uncaused world perhaps you could

So living in a Uncaused world renders all logic worthless. Even the logic you live in an Uncaused world is unreliable.So probably we would see cause ,no matter if it was or wasn't.

So as a working premise , existence and somewhat orderly world, without those two, nothing else is possible. So two basic functional premises which seem to be confirmed by observation regularlyWhat are the tons?

J: Memories. Without specific memories, you can't get a specific KIND of order. And there's conceivably an infinite set of MERE orders. Again, the "number of possible outcomes" probability problem. If we know nothing specific, there's nothing to argue about. Because "events are caused" per se is worthless knowledge.

V: In an Uncaused world induction is worthless,

J: Indeed. That's why induction assumes causality. It can't BE proved evidential inductively. It HAS to be a priori. And all the evidence indicates that it is. Why else do really young children "why" there parents to death?

Unless you are using " observe" in some idiosyncratic way everything we observe becomes a past event the moment we observe it.

J: Memories. Without specific memories, you can't get a specific KIND of order. And there's conceivably an infinite set of MERE orders

The memories are part of the assumption of existence, no memories no awareness of existence, we have awareness of existence by assumption, therefore that we have a continuity of memory follows from that assumption . Of course using that continuity of memory we learn( by virtue of the orderly world) that memory is subject to limitations.

Each memory is not a separate assumption, they flow from the initial assumption, and experience from the orderly world.

And I just don't think you can have an infinite number of events in a finite amount of time.

Indeed. That's why induction assumes causality. It can't BE proved evidential inductively. It HAS to be a priori. And all the evidence indicates that it is. Why else do really young children "why" there parents to death?

We agree, so maybe as a overarching assumption we assume some form of induction, then the existence of self and the existence of orderly world follow from that.

Scott insists that scientists hold his epistemology. The quotes above prove otherwise. Scott lives in a dream-world. But that's safe when the powers that be live there too. Because they hold power, they can destroy who they want, when they want, with IMPUNITY. Today, they typically destroy careers. Tomorrow, as Buzz light year would say, it'll be "infinity and beyond!!!"

Totally...he uses these blog comments to do nothing but tickle his mind with some second year philosophical ideas and clap trap refusing to answer any points against his opining. I don't even bother to read much of what he writes any longer

It seems that Scott is so confused that he thinks that showing that one can't ABSOLUTELY prove something implies that he personally is making progress in knowledge. Sheer idiocy.

I say that even if a Designer is merely a working hypothesis, that hypothesis alone grounds the logical possibility of non-arbitrary relative plausibility criteria. Furthermore, it has withstood ALL criticism for THAT very reason. There is no such thing as relevant criticism of any proposition if there is no such thing as a relative plausibility criteria for any proposition. This much is obvious to non-idiots.

A common thread in the quotes seems to be the assertion that "God wouldn't ..." do such a thing in such a way. At first, it sounds very reverent: "God is a glorious being, full of majesty, etc., and wouldn't stoop to...." such a thing in such a way. Only later does the appalling arrogance of such statements sink in.

It may be that we cannot know how an infinite being might act but we can certainly criticize the Christian concept of God. We can point out where it is incoherent and is difficult to square with the Universe as we observe it. This is nothing new. Theologians have been doing it for thousands of years.

"It may be that we cannot know how an infinite being might act but we can certainly criticize the Christian concept of God. "

The only problem being is you fall splat on your face each time. I've yet to see a criticism of The Christian concept of God that did not depend on some totally incoherent false characterization. Most are circular starting with a premise and ending with it.

Elijah,Perhaps you should inform Ian the correct concept, and how you avoid starting with a premise. For instance, why the God of Abraham, not Shiva? I am sure that Ian would appreciate being accurate in his opinions.

Elijah,No you Nit not me "starting out with" but because IAN SPECIFIED the CHRISTIAN CONCEPT of God.

Nice caps, Ian didn't ask the question I did, " and how you avoid starting with a premise. For instance, why the God of Abraham, not Shiva" that is called a question.

It interested me because of this" The Christian concept of God that did not depend on some totally incoherent false characterization. Most are circular starting with a premise and ending with it."

If starting out with a premise is problem, how do you avoid it? For instance(,this is called an example) why the God of Abraham instead of another God? If premises are not a problem, then why the premise of the God of Abraham not Shiva?

He didn't say anything about Shiva THATS why Shiva doesn't come into it - I see that "can't reason your way out of a wet bag" Jeff said a few months ago still applies to you.

"Nice caps, Ian didn't ask the question I did, " and how you avoid starting with a premise. For instance, why the God of Abraham, not Shiva" that is called a question."

Sigh Yes it was a question but it was a follow up To Ian's statement

"Perhaps you should inform *IAN* the correct concept, and how you avoid starting with a premise. For instance, why the God of Abraham, not Shiva?"

Surprise me every once in awhile with some honesty. Plus your question is just silly. I don't have to start with consideration of Shiva to consider "the Christian concept of God". I can stick to Christianity SINCE THAT WAS THE ONE IAN SPECIFIED.

"If starting out with a premise is problem, how do you avoid it?"

Again the reading comprehension is weak. Starting with a premise is not the issue -its starting with a premise in order to use THE PREMISE to get to a conclusion

"I've yet to see a criticism of The Christian concept of God that did not depend on some totally incoherent false characterization. Most are circular starting with a premise and ending with it."

How can there be a "totally incoherent false characterization" of "The Christian concept of God" since even christians differ so widely in their "concept of God" and since there's no evidence whatsoever that any such "God" exists or that it is anything like any of the numerous christian versions, interpretations, concepts of "God"?

What, in detail, is the correct "Christian concept of God" and how do you know?

Just for the sake of discussion, let's assume that there is a designer-creator (or plural designers-creators) of the universe. Now, can anyone produce scientifically testable/verifiable evidence as to what or who the designer-creator (or plural) is? Can anyone produce scientifically testable/verifiable evidence to show that the designer-creator (or plural) is the so-called 'God(s)' you believe in and worship, or any other so-called 'God(s)'?

If most or all scientists were to accept that there is a designer-creator (or plural), exactly how, in a positive/productive way, would that change the way science is done?

If most or all scientists were to find strong evidence of a designer-creator (or plural) that is absolutely nothing like the 'God(s)' you believe in and worship, would you accept the evidence and discard your religious beliefs?

What if the strong evidence for a designer-creator were to show that the designers-creators are an enormous number of snake-like entities from the 37th dimension that lay eggs that then burst open to become universes, and our universe is just one of trillions? Would you accept that?

Sorry, the original comment was accidentally posted in my wife Julie's name.

Yes, the digital star system was an early prototype of the Evans and Sutherland Digistar system. This story was told by BW (I do not have permission to use his name and have lost contact with him) who was one of the Evans and Sutherland technical leads on the project. I doubt you will find the story on the web.

I suspect Sagan was not directly involved in the conception of the idea and quickly understood why it didn't play out correctly. But all Cosmos personnel were expecting a Big Dipper in reverse and Sagan had clearly not told them it would be otherwise.

I'm sorry but the story is secondhand so I can't answer all your questions.

Regarding the "...", you may wish to study how one conveys a sense of surprise and unbelief in conversational prose, along with what constitutes a complete sentence.

Yes, the digital star system was an early prototype of the Evans and Sutherland Digistar system. This story was told by BW (I do not have permission to use his name and have lost contact with him) who was one of the Evans and Sutherland technical leads on the project. I doubt you will find the story on the web.

LOL! "A nameless friend of a friend of an acquaintance of an associate told me..."

In other words, it's 100% pure unsubstantiated Creationist BS. Also known as a lie.

Glenn,Regarding the "...", you may wish to study how one conveys a sense of surprise and unbelief in conversational prose, along with what constitutes a complete sentence

Yes I am aware of the meaning of ".....", however when using a direct quotation and not a paraphrase as evidence of a claim" To a person, including Sagan, the show's personnel were astronomically challenged," then the use of eclipses is questionable since it may provide an incorrect impression of the actual quote.

I suspect Sagan was not directly involved in the conception of the idea and quickly understood why it didn't play out correctly. But all Cosmos personnel were expecting a Big Dipper in reverse and Sagan had clearly not told them it would be otherwise.

All Cosmos personnel or the ones in charge of designing the shot whom your friend worked with? So basically even your truncated, unverifiable quote does not support your claim that Sagan was astronomically challenged.

Do I believe that a great many people are uneducated about the stars ,yes of course. Do I believe that accuracy on a computer simulation might be sacrificed for aesthetic reasons,yes. Do I believe TV guys could be dopes,of course.

But I also believe that to accuse a professional of being incompetent requires at least a bit of actual evidence.

E2012: The only way you get to a universe without cause is if that universe has no laws and anything can and will happen or exist

J: I would say it this way. Since one can not test whether events are caused, there can be no evidence for the "caused-ness" of an event. Uncaused events have no predictable properties or ascertainable probability of occurrence. Thus, one can't, after denying the a priori nature of the principle of causality, provide evidence that a regularity of event sequences is most probably due to causality. Thus, per modernists, to posit that any event is caused is to posit what has the EXACT same probability that it is not caused. You can't make progress in knowledge growth that way. This means that all extrapolation of laws over any amount of space and time is completely unwarranted. Because by that view, you can't even know if apparent memories are actual memories, etc. We use parsimony to infer when apparent memories are false. But parsimony ASSUMES the reality of causality.

E2012: Unfortunately for the atheists that would mean that God would be a 100% chance of being real - so a certainty.

J: I would put it this way. If any contingent being knows anything at all, a benevolent/competent designer is the only conceivable cause of its capacity to know if capacities are caused. The alternative is to say that beliefs aren't known to be caused and that true beliefs are, for all anyone can tell, merely coincidentally true. But if either of the two latter conditions are true, we couldn't know THOSE very truths. Because that would undermine even coincidentally true beliefs by rendering them dubious. The atheist has no epistemology that explains the possibility of non-coincidental knowledge (i.e., true, warranted belief).

Scott has admitted as much. If you listen careful to Scott, he basically says that preference amounts to knowledge. This means knowledge is inherently contradictory, for preferences differ from person to person and from time to time in the same people -- unless, i.e., that inference is false because knowledge of the beliefs or existence of others is impossible in the first place.

Don't be nasty, like that horrible William Lane Craig, Cornelius! tee! hee!

Anyone would think the theme you are addressing to be extremely complex and contentious, Cornelius, when you're merely saying, 'Don't dress up gratuitous conjecture as science.' You should have tried it, using words of no more than two syllables.

Has anyone been able to gainsay you? I haven't read their posts, but I know they must be indulging in hilariously irrelevant digressions.

Every once in a while evolutionists distill their thoughts into pithy statements that profoundly summarize what it’s all about for them.

That's right. They're a neat way of getting a basic message across. There's quite a few of them in the Bible too.

Carl Sagan’s 1980 Cosmos video is chocked full of such statements, but non better than his classic opening line: “The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” Obviously that is a truth claim, but it does not come from science.

Actually, like Velikovskys, I saw it more as a definition of the term rather than a truth claim. This was the subject of his TV show.

And so while there is nothing wrong with evolutionists proclaiming what they believe. There is everything wrong with their insistence that it is what everyone else must believe as well.

I've seen scientists arguing forcefully for their viewpoint but not insisting that everyone else believe it as well. Who did you have in mind?

I suppose we should also note in passing that religions have a pretty good track record of what today might be called 'enhanced conversion techniques', a bit like the CIAs "enhanced interrogation techniques".

That their personal religious beliefs, not open to scientific scrutiny, are scientific facts.

I've never seen that. Examples?

Evolutionists may be correct about origins, but they are not scientific.

The theory of evolution is not a theory about the origins of life or the Universe itself.

There is, however, perfectly good scientific research being conducted into origins

Here is a small, representative sampling of such claims over the past three centuries.

The first eight of those pre-date publication of Darwin's theory so they could hardly be called "evolutionists".

[...]

These claims are not from science, but they drive science. They determine what is acceptable and not acceptable. They inform science and constrain it the “right” answers.

Newtonian mechanics was the "right" answer for quite a while, not so much now, though. That's in spite of all those religious scientists insisting eevryone else toe the party line of their day.

CH: I never thought I'd see this magnitude of backpedaling. It appears that there really is nothing evolutionists won't try to walk back when confronted with what they actually said.

J: Are you beginning to understand why Berlinski sees it plausible that the firing squads will occur very shortly after these people get sufficient government power? Just as was the case in every other newly formed atheistic-style regime?

It ain't rocket science. They hate inductive reason, since the only conceivable ground of its VALIDITY/PROPRIETY is a benevolent/competent designer of the fit between human modes of inference and extra-ego reality (which assumes solipsism isn't true, of course). And yet deduction without induction buys us nothing. For categories are too barren to be fruitful. What value, e.g., is the premise "events are caused" in a syllogism without another inductive premise to imply something specific? And so they despise rational/inductive thinking persons.

The amazing thing is that Berlinski is an agnostic. But he realizes that even he is despised by dogmatic atheists/deists/etc merely for not being a "good" dogmatist/fideist.

TWT, given that the vast majority of governments known were probably either professedly theistic in the Western sense of the polytheistic sense, the percentage of non-atheistic governments that have persecuted atheists merely because they were atheists is trivial compared to the percentage of professedly atheistic states that persecuted theists merely because they were theists. And are you actually going to contend that the professedly atheistic states have been the exemplars of the best governing state in the world? Dude, you're an absolute moron.

To: Ian H. SpeddingWhat I believe Cornelius Hunter is getting at, please correct me if I'm wrong, is that evolutionary ideas predated Darwin, that the world (humankind) has been putting forth ideas of a universe without God, or without a caring God, pretty much for as long as there have been people. Thus the comments from "theologians" Also, that some evolutionary scientists don't even realize that they are presupposing a RELIGIOUS idea, not a scientific one. The difference being, scientific method is generally known to begin with a theory, develop a hypothesis, make predictions based on that hypothesis, conduct experiments based on those predictions, and make statements, (sometimes more hypotheses to be tested) based on the VALIDITY of those experimental results. In all honesty, evolutionary theory has left this form of scientific inquiry behind long ago. The only reason for this can be a presupposed "truth", that everything formed without any intelligent agent involved, so no matter what the evidence to the contrary, "Evolution is Truth". This is a religious statement, or at the very least, a statement of faith. The fact that many people can not even see this makes it a delusion, and that is immensely troubling. If the reliance on the above statement IS known for what it is, why not say so? Why not admit other presuppositions, based on evidence, like ID, to be honestly viewed, considered, and critiqued by the whole scientific community? I'm sorry, but I've heard the answer to this many, many, times, so, based on evidence of past experience, may I hypothesize your answer? "Because it's not Science!"I am really trying not to be rude, if anything I've said comes across that way, I'm truly sorry. I think rudeness and hate accomplish nothing.

“Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history.”

Stephen Jay Gould, 1980

I wondered where their "proof" for molecule to man evolution was.

You see, it's all about GOD. You have mere mortals trying to tell us how God SHOULD have created things and because He didn't do it the way their fallible, biased, and false thinking wants them to believe He should have, then He didn't do it all.

Of course, it needs to to be remembered that such statements by evolutionists are based on what they THOUGHT they knew, such as when they THOUGHT our genome was mainly 'junk' but actually has shown that the alleged 'junk' play very important roles. And they have the nerve to think they can tell God how He SHOULD have created the universe and everything in it?!?!?

"You have mere mortals trying to tell us how God SHOULD have created things...".

Did it ever occur to you that rational, observant, educated mere mortals point out how "God" should, could, or would design-create things because of the way that you "God" pushing mere mortals describe your so-called designer-creator-god?

Your so-called "God" is described by you mere mortals as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, perfect, etc. If your so-called "God" is the designer-creator of everything, and is actually as you mere mortals describe, there should, could, and would not be any 'imperfections' in anything.

Imperfections, odd arrangements, or funny solutions are not "proof" of evolution but they, along with lots of other evidence, support the theory of evolution, and they certainly do not support your allegedly omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, perfect, so-called "God".

cornelius, why, exactly, do you have a problem with Sagan's statement: "The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."?

It is an example of evolution's internal contradiction. You can't make metaphysical truth claims and then say you're not making metaphysical truth claims. Listen for another few moments and you will hear Sagan say that "we follow the evidence whereever it leads. Evolution defines the answer in advance, and then claims to be doing empirical science. That's an abuse of science.

DrHunter,It is an example of evolution's internal contradiction. You can't make metaphysical truth claims and then say you're not making metaphysical truth claims

Perhaps you could take a lesson from Dr Sagan and clearly define your terms.

So if someone anywhere makes what you interpret as a metaphysical truth claim without immediately acknowledging it as such,it is an example of your metaphysical belief that the ToE is only a metaphysical claim.

DrHunter,Immediately acknowledge? We're nowhere close to that. Sagan doesn't acknowledge his non scientific claims *at all*. In fact, within seconds he claims he's just "following the evidence wherever it lead

I'll take that as a yes, I am correct about my theory. What makes your opinion more accurate the Sagan's. I believe you are sincere mostly, however you seem to view your opponents as completely insincere.

For that insincerity to be true many professionals of different religious views must not only see the evidence to same way as you but to then deny its truth.

Else when Sagan says he is following the evidence he is sincere, with the possibilty he is incorrect. Ed Zarchry like you.

No, it is not yes, it is irrelevant. Sagan not only does not "immediately acknowledge" his metaphysics, he does not acknowledge them at all. It is not a question of how fast evolutionists acknowledge their non science. They simply don't acknowledge it at all.

I believe you are sincere mostly, however you seem to view your opponents as completely insincere.

No, I'm not saying Sagan was insincere. As Alfred North Whitehead once suggested, assumptions and premises that are crucial are often deemed to be obvious and true. These assumptions are unspoken and undefended because "Such assumptions appear so obvious that people do not know what they are assuming because no other way of putting things has ever occurred to them." So the issue is not insincerity.

Good, my mistake. But just to be clear,you think most evolutionists are sincere.

" Evolution defines the answer in advance, and then claims to be doing empirical science."

Now that is your truth claim, why should we believe you instead of the scientist who says that is nonsense. You agreed that the scientist could be sincere. First of course he might ask you to specify exactly what you mean by " evolution". Why is your view more accurate?

God would not “set his own hand as it were to every work, and immediately do all the meanest and trifling’st things himself drudgingly, without making use of any inferior or subordinate Minister.” John Ray, 1717.

“Thus, we can hardly believe that the webbed feet of the upland goose or of the frigate-bird are of special use to these birds; we cannot believe that the similar bones in the arm of the monkey, in the fore-leg of the horse, in the wing of the bat, and in the flipper of the seal, are of special use to these animals. We may safely attribute these structures to inheritance.” Charles Darwin, 1859.

“Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history.” Stephen Jay Gould, 1980.

Gould,"Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution—paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history"

I personally think that is a bad argument,no one can ever know what the actions of a sensible god would appear to be from man's limited viewpoint.

But that is not the same as this " Evolution defines the answer in advance, and then claims to be doing empirical science."

This it seems to by wrong by the claim, that scientists are not doing empirical science. Physicists prior to Einstein were doing empirical science. Knowledge can be acquired even if the theory is incorrect

Now since there is no competing scientific theory that does not require some level of evolutionary change, then if would seem logical to study that change to see what exactly it consists of. If doing so reveals persuasive evidence otherwise you should be ecstatic .

So I believe your claim ,that because scientists use methodological naturalism their work is not empirical, is false.

I personally think that is a bad argument, no one can ever know what the actions of a sensible god would appear to be from man's limited viewpoint. But that is not the same as this "Evolution defines the answer in advance, and then claims to be doing empirical science."

Well I’m afraid it is the same. If your religion mandates evolution before the science begins, then that is defining the answer in advance.

DrHunter,Well I’m afraid it is the same. If your religion mandates evolution before the science begins, then that is defining the answer in advance.

Not really,it is using a tool for what it has been shown as effective for. The scientific method is unreliable in detecting non natural causes. Unless you know a way to detect those causes in nature , since detection of causes in nature is the aim of science.

So at the present time there are not any other scientific theories,and there are plenty of unknowns about the ToE, so it seems unreasonable to demand scientist ignore the only viable theory for some unknown theory.

But as Einstein overturned Newton,if a more explanatory models appears , scientists will follow the new paradigm as they have before.

Apparently CH you don't care that such over-the-top ridiculous claims make you a laughingstock of pretty much the whole science blogosphere. At least you've shelved the homophobic bigotry for a while anyway.

Please excuse me if this is shown on the main board twice, I am not trying to spam anyone, I'm just fairly new to this, so I don't know if the replies get hidden, and I wanted to weigh in on this, I originally posted this as a reply to something Ian Spedding said.

What I believe Cornelius Hunter is getting at, please correct me if I'm wrong, is that evolutionary ideas predated Darwin, that the world (humankind) has been putting forth ideas of a universe without God, or without a caring God, pretty much for as long as there have been people. Thus the comments from "theologians" Also, that some evolutionary scientists don't even realize that they are presupposing a RELIGIOUS idea, not a scientific one. The difference being, scientific method is generally known to begin with a theory, develop a hypothesis, make predictions based on that hypothesis, conduct experiments based on those predictions, and make statements, (sometimes more hypotheses to be tested) based on the VALIDITY of those experimental results. In all honesty, evolutionary theory has left this form of scientific inquiry behind long ago. The only reason for this can be a presupposed "truth", that everything formed without any intelligent agent involved, so no matter what the evidence to the contrary, "Evolution is Truth". This is a religious statement, or at the very least, a statement of faith. The fact that many people can not even see this makes it a delusion, and that is immensely troubling. If the reliance on the above statement IS known for what it is, why not say so? Why not admit other presuppositions, based on evidence, like ID, to be honestly viewed, considered, and critiqued by the whole scientific community? I'm sorry, but I've heard the answer to this many, many, times, so, based on evidence of past experience, may I hypothesize your answer? "Because it's not 'Science'!"I am really trying not to be rude, if anything I've said comes across that way, I'm truly sorry. I think rudeness and hate accomplish nothing.

P.S. I'd like to clarify that ID in itself does not presuppose that an intelligent designer has to be the God of my (or anyone else's) understanding. On this point it is more inclusive (thus more broad in scope) and far less arrogant than the theory of evolution.

Obilio, I won't answer "Because it's not science!" My answer is a form of Occam's Razor: "Why invoke non-natural causes for physical changes when physical causes are more than adequate to explain the phenomena?" If you found evidence for God's intervention in natural history, what would it look like? Or does the ID hypothesis presume an absence of evidence for natural causes?